I mentioned in a post last week that I was disgusted that CNN's Jack Cafferty was taking a local (Florida) newspaper report and turning it into a national story, when there really was no story to begin with.

Now along comes TIME's Joe Klein...offering a bit more evidence (and therefore a story) that Democrats in 2008 might have to consider Al Gore as a compromise presidential candidate.

Sunday, March 30, 2008

Kudos to the anonymous person who left two comments to the "You knew this was coming" post I made earlier this evening. Whoever it is makes a valid point -- there is more than one way to look at and interpret the events taking place over the past couple of weeks in China and Tibet.

Each of us should examine as many media sources as possible and make our own decision about what the truth is and where blame lies.

This idea, of course, holds true for any media story, no matter how controversial it is. (And it might be even more relevant when examining an international event.) We learn more, and we become better consumers and critics of news when we take the time to explore as many sources of information as possible.

I've read with some genuine interest the various media reports over the last day or two indicating that a variety of Democrats are asking Mrs. Clinton to step aside. My reaction to each story -- why? I pose the question not to suggest I have no idea why some within the Democratic leadership would want her to quit. Instead, I was asking it hoping that there would be substantive analysis of why.

Most stories have provided the answers, though there appear to be very few. One would certainly be party unity. Another would be preventing a protracted race that drains the funds either Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Obama would need for the general election. A third would be the math involved -- it would be difficult for Mrs. Clinton to overtake Mr. Obama. Yet another would be eliminating the almost free ride that Mr. McCain is enjoying now that he has wrapped up the Republican nomination.

Also, I heard an interesting interview on NPR yesterday afternoon, when Olympic historian David Wallechinsky discussed the history of politics and the Olympics. Needeless to say, China is not the first country dealing with this.

NPR also is reporting this morning that the unrest in Tibet and the Chinese government's handling of the situation has placed into question the notion of ethnic harmony within China.

...have been detained, according to Chinese authorities, as a result of the protests in Tibet.

I heard an interesting interview on NPR about this situation this morning. China's "representative" to the United States (I put the word in quotes because it surprised me that he wasn't called an ambassador) indicated on at least two occasions that there was a concerted and orchestrated effort underway within Tibet to undermine the Beijing Olympics. I kept waiting for the "why," but that information was never forthcoming.

You'll notice in those special reports that Hiel and Merriman made a real attempt at practicing convergence. Learning that craft, regardless of whether one is a broadcast or print reporter, "is a challenge for all of us," Hiel said.

She noted that on a couple of occasions either she or Merriman were aware of the dangers they faced while in Pakistan. Their fears, she said, were not based on a sense that they personally were the targets of anyone; instead they were aware that the volatility within the country could have led to them become innocent victims of some kind of attack. Hiel later told the students that no reporter can place the possibility of dying in the front of their minds; doing so will prevent them from getting their jobs done. "If you think like that, you should get out (of the business)," she said. Merriman added that it was a surreal feeling to know that they were at times in places where one group of people would be happy to see them but another group of people would have welcomed the opportunity to kill them.

Hiel has been stationed in Cairo since 2000, when she became the newspaper's Middle East correspondent. She told the students of the importance of working hard, catching a few breaks, paying your dues and always being ready for that phone to ring.

Merriman said much the same thing. He said something that really resonated with me: A camera is "a passport to anything you want to do." Merriman has been to India and Pakistan in the past three years (and kudos by the way to the Trib for its commitment to these and other international projects). He told the sizable number of photography and photojournalism majors in attendance that he shot 14,000 pictures while in Pakistan, but there was only one that he really liked. Yes, that makes him a perfectionist, but it also makes him a really good photojournalist.

Be sure to check out that link I highlighted above. It's a fascinating series of reports and does much to educate us about the country, its people, and its relationship with the United States.

As promised from yesterday...a variety of media reports assessing the Justice Department's decision to approve the merger of XM and Sirius. From here, you can access the Washington Post, New York Times, and the Associated Press.

I think the larger and more pertinent question is not how these people vote in the Pennsylvania primary...but what they choose to do in November. And come to think of it, this trend of increasing Democratic voters and how they vote in the general election is a relevant national question as well. In other words, are these people switching simply so they can have a say in the primary contests? Or are these changes a sign of discontent with the Republicans/affinity for the Democrats? Stay tuned!

Sunday, March 23, 2008

Playing catch up again with Michael Bugeja's The Interpersonal Divide...

Chapter 4: Bugeja suggests in this chapter that each successive media development (i.e. printing press, radio, television, Internet) has moved people further away from interpersonal communities, further into self-imposed isolation from people, and closer to the clutches of marketers.

As I read this chapter, I was reminded of the number of students whom I see on my college campus (and others, whenever I am on another one) who seem glued to their cellular phones. In my opinion, what I think gets lost is a sense of what is actually happening around them -- the people they see and the information they were just introduced to being the most obvious -- in place of their desire to be connected to other people in other places. This trend also continues within classrooms, where students too often use their computers to e-mail, Web search and text message others, instead of listening to what I (or other faculty) say in front of the classroom. I know of at least one colleague who mandates that all cellphones in his classroom be shut off, and another colleague who threatened to have technology installed in his classroom that would allow him to shut off the desktop computers when he doesn't specifically have his students using them.

Chapter 5: The knowing (or unknowing) decision people make when they allow media to gain more control over their lives leads to an increasing loss of self, an acceptance of a lack of personal attention when we seek professional assistance, an intrusion of marketers and other for-profit motivated industries into our homes, and the release of valuable (to marketers) personal information. A wordy sentence, but a provocative way to consider how technology, when misused, can overrun each person.

Underscoring this chapter is the recognition that there is an ethical use of technology, but too often corporations care nothing for this. Viewed another way, Bugeja believes people should use the media to expand, not restrict, the communities to which they need and want to belong. He also challenges his readers to use media technologies to find the truth, gain knowledge and other like virtues, and not to simply be marketed to.

Chapter 6: Bugeja chastises the baby boomer generation (within the marketing world) for selling out; he argues they've abandoned the non-commercial values of their youth in favor of net worth and profit margins. He also notes that information and communication have become valuable because they are marketable; information is not valued for information sake but as a mechanism for profit.

I found myself during this chapter thinking about the visits I make to my in-laws. They are from a small, southeast Ohio town, where easy access to cable and Internet is anything but easy. Inevitably when I go there, I wonder how in the world I will get along without the 'Net for a weekend. Soon, however, the book I bring with me becomes a healthy substitute for sitting in front of the computer or television.

One last element to this chapter that particularly resonated with me is what is happening to library-based research in this media-saturated world. I still find it enjoyable to spend time in a library (or a bookstore) looking for something I want or perhaps need. Yet, many of my students seem baffled when I tell them that the research they need to do shouldn't be done online...stepping foot into the library, touching the dusty books, etc. is at the heart of great research. I know I will hear groans when I introduce a research paper and then mention the need to be in the library. Why, I wonder, is that idea of being in the library seemingly so taxing to some students?

This could be a valuable research project for an academic scholar -- looking at media coverage of the reverend from a black-media source to that from a different source.

One other note -- I did a quick glance on the other cable news web sites -- I couldn't find this Wright story on CNN, MSNBC or any other site. Read into that whatever you wish: FOX is reporting it; its competitors aren't.

UPDATE: To further this point of what news organizations are (and aren't) reporting this story TODAY, I ran an Internet search using the words "Wright," "lynching" and "Trinity." I came up with only a couple: FOX and the Washington Post (plus a couple of other agencies that have picked up at least one of these reports). I didn't include blogs or other non-media sources that are writing about this story.

...has anyone seen/read/heard any reaction from anyone within the International Olympic Committee to the various media reports that circulated in recent days about the Chinese government perhaps banning live broadcasts from Tiananmen Square?

I accessed the IOC's Web site, thinking there might be something, but found nothing. You will find a story about the lighting of the Olympic Torch, however. That important event happens tomorrow.

Our two boys demonstrated yet again today that children can be oh-so wonderful.

Each has been battling varying degrees of asthma in recent days, and our younger one had it bad enough in the overnight hours to need an emergency room visit. When informed of what was going on, the boys' allergy doctor told my wife he wanted to see both of them...today.

On the way home from that visit, my wife told the kids that they wouldn't be going to their cousin's house for Easter, and they also might have to miss church on Sunday. Our older one -- he's 9 -- didn't seem all that concerned.

"I'll just watch it on television," he said."But it won't be on television," he was told."Why not? Jesus rose from the dead. We know that. So we'll just watch," he said, apparently with a healthy dose of confidence."Dominic," his mother said, "there was no television in Jesus' time. There was no one to record it.""Yeah, but mom," he said, "television shows us everything. And because Easter happens every year maybe Jesus can just come down from Heaven and re-enact it."

Now, as you roll uncontrollably on the floor, remember...this kid is 9. Now, remember the younger sibling...whose about to join this conversation is 4.

That answer should be obvious enough. The nation is struggling to build a semblance of normalcy, but if those who are responsible for reporting what is happening...and doing that as objetively as possible...are facing threats from every conceivable political and religious front, their job becomes next to impossible.

As mentioned in some previous posts, the important secondary issue associated with this crisis is whether it will lead to substantive conversation about a boycott of the Beijing Olympics, scheduled for this summer. At least one French official can't make up his mind...and confusing comments such as this do not help define how the debate will/should play out in media discourse.

...of the beginning of the war in Iraq. You should expect an interesting series of television stories tonight.

I fear that the emotion of the day -- the angry protestors, those who say we need to stay there until the job is done -- will overshadow the requisite analysis. As I write this, I'm reminded of a section of the 2007 State of the News Media report that I always cite to my students: The report indicated that television was the medium that most consistently injected emotional elements into its storytelling.

I can tell you from my days in Southern California that you cannot simply turn off bad air in a short period of time. It takes a concerted effort over many years. Consider, for example, the many efforts that local and state agencies have taken in Los Angeles and its surrounding areas. Now also consider where that area ranks among the dirtiest cities in America.

My point is not to bash Los Angeles. And I'm certainly not bashing Beijing. I'm merely saying that short-term efforts aren't likely to bear the kind of fruit that is hoped for.

Monday, March 17, 2008

Setting aside my sarcasm, it is important to note that although this boycott conversation almost certainly will go nowhere, look at how quickly such talk has boomeranged into the national conversation.

On one hand, this is an example of the power of modern communications. On the other, it is a demonstration that the boycott is now viewed as a legitimate political tool for advocacy groups to call for. No, such groups often do not have the presumed legitimacy or power of a national government (and I can see no situation in which the current political administration would -- or should -- use Tibet as grounds for a U.S. boycott of the Games), but they nevertheless will use the 1980 U.S. Olympic boycott as a means to give their calls some credence. In other words these groups will ask: if our government was willing to do it then, why should it not at least consider it now?

I agree with this policy, but I also recognize that in the technology saturated world in which we live interview subjects are likely going to ask for this kind of media interaction more and more in the future. They see it as more convenient (and for them it is). How can journalists argue that there traditional face-to-face contact remains the best form of interviewing?

As I read this, I was reminded of a research project that a former colleague at Texas Tech and I worked on a few years ago. It examined media coverage of the unrest in the Baltics in the early 1990s. One of the more interesting findings was that once the U.S. went to war in Iraq, the question of what was happening in the Baltics all but disappeared from news coverage. It was as if the television news networks had determined that their audiences could handle only one significant international crisis at once. Of course, the costs of covering two major international conflicts couldn't be ignored, especially when one involved the U.S. and its military.

Playing catch-up on this book...a busy week and first part of the weekend slowed down my reading of this increasingly interesting text.

As I've done with the initial chapters, I begin with a (likely over-simplified) synopsis of the chapter -- the overuse of technology affects our mental and physical well-being. Michael Bugeja doesn't use the term "the biggest bang for your buck," but I think it is an appropriate way to characterize the third chapter.

Media seek to reach the widest possible audience, and therefore generate the largest possible profits, in part by defining all of us as alike -- we somehow are led to believe (or worse, are forced to believe) that we need to be like everyone else; can be treated, taught, influenced, bought or sold like everyone else; and ultimately we lose a sense of individuality. We dismiss, probably without realizing it, our connection to the community in which we live -- a community that thrives on the subtle differences that keep it ticking -- when we oversaturate ourselves in a media and cyberspace world that cannot in any way tap into our mental, emotional and physical uniqueness. Robert Putnam's "Bowling Alone" book would be a very effective additional read, as you advance through "The Interpersonal Divide." Its focus on community decline meshes well with Bugeja's arguments.

As I read through this chapter, I kept hearing my department chair's voice. She occasionally rails against the immense amount of e-mails that flow into and out of her computer each day. "Can't we do anything by phone anymore?" she asks every now and then. It's perhaps ironic that she -- with a background in the print world -- grumbles over e-mails (a form of the written word) flying all over the place, while I, a former broadcaster, advise my students that I immensely prefer the e-mail to the telephone (a form of the spoken word). Go figure. A generational thing more than a professional thing? Perhaps.

I reiterate something I've said in summarizing the first two chapters -- I cannot understand why there has been such a negative reaction to this book. Sure, all of us can quibble about something we don't like in any text (I noted my belief that more substantive examples should have been included in chapter 2); however, the central thesis of this text remains a powerful and legitimate one: Technology works best in our lives when we dictate the role we want it to have in our lives. When the ruler and the subject is reversed, our humanity suffers.

I snapped this photo from my airplane seat as I flew over the Rocky Mountains in late January.

Yes, the power of nature has always amazed me. Having grown up in Southern California, I learned about nature's power (and sometimes fury) through multiple earthquakes. But it is nature's beauty...including these majestic Rocky Mountains...that I also respect so much.

This link will take you to an ABC News report/blog in which Rev. Jeremiah Wright responds forcefully to the "God d*** America" story that circulated a few days ago about him.

You'll recall that Obama repudiated the comments uttered by Rev. Wright almost seven years ago, and he also said that Rev. Wright would have no role in the campaign.

I also think you should read some of the strident, negative, nasty remarks at the bottom of the story to which you've been invited to link. I've glanced at perhaps 20-25 of them, and it strikes me that none of the authors failed to inject some kind of negative language into their comments.

Saturday, March 15, 2008

I came away from today's SPJ conference noting to a few colleagues that although there was less conversation than I'm used to hearing at conventions and conferences about new technologies, there also seemed to be less angst about what the future of media and technology will be.

I found that unusual, only because the title of the conference was "Digital Democracy." The first word in that title would seem to suggest that many people would have significant concerns. In fact, I sensed that there were more people embracing and excited about the future interactions of media and technology than I had heard before.

Now what I think will be the highlight of the day...and I will post regularly from it. Toni Locy is speaking about her "anthrax" story.

As we begin, remember that the fines she was expected to pay has (for now) been set aside by a federal appeals court.

1st update: Locy is beginning with a brief background of the story, and how it began as a follow-up to the fear from 9/11. "The anthrax attacks acutely scared the American public," Locy says because everyone felt that they could be affected by it.

2nd update: Locy relied on many sources, at least a dozen of whom were from the FBI, and all sources had to be confidential because of the "highly charged atmosphere" that followed 9/11. She felt that the stakes in her reporting were never higher -- would we catch Osama bin Laden...what was happening at Guantanamo...legal issues associated with Guantanamo...and the coverage of the courts are just a few of the concerns that took part in this high-stakes games.

3rd update: Anthrax was not the sole story she covered, and therefore to highlight every source she used in any story would not only link sources to people that did not deserve to be; but she also discarded her notes, something she learned in her first journalism assignment at the Pittsburgh Press.

4th update: Two stories -- one in May, the other in June 2003 -- form the core of the lawsuit Dr. Stephen Hatfill has filed against the Justice Department as part of its investigation into the anthrax scare. Locy said neither she nor any of her sources could ever remember a term "a person of interest" ever being used before. Her May 29 story noted that Hatfill was under 24-hour surveillance' "it broke no new ground...but it was accurate," Locy said. She compared Hatfill's circumstances as being similar to that faced by Richard Jewell, the security guard who was initially at the center of the 1996 Olympic Park bombings.

5th update: Locy's fight is far from over, but it is on a fast-track. Among her critical questions: Should every source be revealed as part of a fishing expedition? Why did her information go from being somewhat irrelevant -- that was a judge's decision -- to being at the center of the case? Why has she faced an order that no other journalist ever had to deal with? Isn't there a danger that Hatfill's case opens the door for multiple future journalists, and doesn't it run the real risk of chilling investigative pieces? Recognizing that the media couldn't have ignored the anthrax case, then how could Hatfill be able to argue a privacy violation...once he had been identified as a person of interest?

6th update: Locy is wondering if the judge is attempting to bring about an out-of-court settlement in which she, the USA Today and the Justice Department will be forced to come together to take care of the civil suit brought by Hatfill? "Journalism, or what's left of it, will be destroyed out of fear," Locy said, as she wrapped up her prepared remarks, unless something is done to stop what is happening to her.

7th update: Locy has finally gotten around to talking about a shield law, which is something she deserved to bring about sooner. She says that while a shield law will not be perfect, it will be a way for journalists to gain some security. If its passage won't happen now, Locy is suggesting, then it won't ever happen. At last check, it was stalled in the Senate.

8th update: "I'd do it exactly the same way" if I had to do it all over again, Locy says. Locy is using her story in her media law class, not as a case study, but as the latest in a series of incidents about journalism, confidential sources, protecting sources and the value of a shield law.

9th update: Locy reiterated something that all students need to remember -- she made a promise to her sources to not reveal their names, and she never will. Moreover, hers is an example: If she loses, then think about what the implications might be. These reasons underscore why Locy says she's never going to give up...and will go to whatever lengths it takes to fight this.

10th update: So far, a fascinating discussion. Locy is demonstrating both a fiery determination but a desperate honesty -- she recognizes that she has to fight, and you get the sense that she recognizes that what she's doing is not about her. It's clear that whatever the judge intends to do, she won't give up. I admire her for her conviction. It's very easy for all of us who were (or are) in journalism to say that we would adopt the same attitude, and we almost certainly would. But wouldn't it be amazing to get into her head and share every thought...every fear...every bit of grit and determination she has.

11th update: "Why is this person telling me this?" Locy has just reminded a Point Park University student to keep that question in mind whenever the issue of confidentiality comes up. Because everyone has an agenda, it is important to know what someone is attempting to gain by telling you information without allowing their names to be associated with what they have said.

Brad King from Northern Kentucky University has finished a well-thoughtout and argued presentation about how the media ought to be dealing with new technologies and using them to better interact with their audience.

King suggested that for anyone -- from the MSM to the local community to the individual -- to build a network, four things must be kept in mind:1. Content is always king, and it is the writer's responsibility to take raw data and convert it into a meaningful context and then the final report2. You need to organize your network so that everything is easy to find and access3. Closely connected to this, the interface that the network uses must be simple4. Finally, and this is probably the hardest one to accept, there must be a decentralized approach to control/access/ownership of the site. In other words, the more the public feels it is empowered or involved, the more of a role it will want to play.

Later, he added that there are 4 rules for that decentralization:1. No free riders -- people must not only read but they also must contribute. (See, I told you I want to hear from you who read this blog!)2. There need to be a set of rules (better defined as compliance) that everyone is expected to follow3. There should be rewards for people who contribute (nope, I haven't even thought of how I'm going to do that!)4. And the growth must be organic -- it can't be forced.

King then outlined why he believes the traditional media model already is dead (something I dispute, but this is not the time to argue that point) largely because the public says it has lost its trust in the media.

The luncheon presentation was delivered by Kate Phillips from the New York Times. Her presentation was a bit disappointing, I thought. I expected a more dynamic conversation about how the newspaper is preparing and delivering content -- especially online - in this critical election year. Instead there was a disjointed presentation about a variety of issues.

Here are the highlights, as I found them:1. The New York Times, as is true of so many media organizations, is recognizing the importance of this election and seeing consistent strong readership of its content and blogs.2. The Times is adopting a "only the reader sleeps" mentality, meaning that its writers are at the ready 24/7. 3. The last thing Phillips said that I thought was poignant was that she feared that in this online, electronic, seemingly effortless means of communications...we are forgetting the power of the face-to-face interview. It is that kind of conversation that allows a journalist to best interact with a source.

The second breakout session I am attending is examining the public records debate in Pennsylvania and a couple of other regional states.

One of the first speakers is David Marburger, a former Pittsburgh journalist who now practices law in Ohio. He is noting that one of the more bizarre use of public records involves people in Hamilton county Ohio (near Cincinnati) who were taking court records (especially from traffic ticket records) and using that information to create false identifications. One woman who was a victim of identity theft has sued on both the federal and appealate courts, and she has lost both times.

The Court of Appeals acknowleded that public records information such as she was noting should not be on the Internet; however, the court also said that the publication of this information does not rise to the level that supports her case. Marburger suggests that the strict nature of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, which heard this case, had much to do with Cynthia Lambert losing her case.

"Before the Internet, the bad guys wanted to do identity theft," Marburger told his audience, but they were afraid of being recognized. Now, these people can do it from home.

Marburger reminds his audience that one of the reasons that journalists sometimes fail in their open records request is that they are thinking like journalists, and not like government administrators, when making their requests. He outlined a series of strategies, from narrowing the request; being aware of what is in a file; seeking what you want one step at a time; and others that will assist a journalist (or someone else) from getting what they want.

Teri Henning, the general counsel for the Pennsylvania Newspaper Association, adds that most records in Pennsylvania are considered closed, despite the idea of a "public records" philosophy.

There is a new open records law in Pennsylvania that, although it is still flawed, does allow for certain access to community colleges, the legislature, the judiciary, state contracts and other agency records. One of the more intriguing items is that the state's legislature remains under some seperate rules than is applicable to other state agencies.

Henning says there is still a "culture of secrecy" in Pennsylvania about open records laws.

To wrap up the morning...a moment of humor: Today's conference is taking place at the same time that the city's annual St. Patrick's Day Parade. It is almost surreal listening to professional journalists, educators and lawyers discussing important journalism issues...as the bands, police/fire sirens, and cheering crowds hoot and holler on the streets below us.

The first breakout session of the day is being led by Jan Schaffer, Executive Director of J-Lab. She's speaking about the variety of ways that participatory and citizen journalism is making a difference in several communities.

She suggests that there are four general community news trends:1. User-generated content2. News games3. Databases/maps4. Non-profit news

She reports that we often think of community journalism as either mainstream media offering coverage of a community...or individual bloggers commenting on what is happening. However, more and more often communities are using foundation grants to create their own community Websites and information sources. Some of the information is serious, while in other places it's designed to be fun.

Among the best uses of databases comes from Chicago, which has created a congressional votes database, which gathers information from a multiple set of sources.

Schaffer also is suggesting that in the future, blogging will not be something you read...but will be something you do. In other words, there are a variety of ways for people to create their own news.

Online video sites also seem to be growing in popularity, Schaffer is reporting. So, too, are citizen media sites, which, she reports, really became popular only four years ago. Many MSM are setting aside space for citizen media to become more engaged in this process. At the same time, many former journalists are creating their own sites...Schaffer suggests those who are interested to go either NewHavenIndependent.com or MinnPost.com

Schaffer mentions something that is important -- hyperlocal sites are generating significant audience attention, and in some cases it is leading to increasing political participation. Success is measured by:1. Political empowerment;2. Solving community problems;3. Connecting people

Now, imagine the challenges this poses to those of us who teach journalism!! Some of my colleagues will be frightened by this concept, while others wil embrace this strategy. One question that immediately comes to mind -- if we wanted to introduce this kind of storytelling, when is it most appropriate to introduce it into the curriculum? Should this be implemented only on the graduate level? How would an educator be able to distinguish between critical/analytical writing and simple opinion spewing?

Schaffer is also reminding people of something important -- transparency is important here. The "openness" of reporting and writing will determine how successful a site is and what kind of reaction the public has.

My first immediate reaction -- Washington state and Minnesota seem far more progressive in the creation and use of Web sites.

My second immediate reaction -- how are local media reacting to, dealing with, attempting to incorporate the information that is being created by their (potential) audience.

...in print. Kim Kweder graduated in May 2007. She began her professional career in Lithuania, where she was working for an English-based newspaper. Now she's in Washington, where she is a copy editor for the Washington Times.

This time they're being blamed for causing President Bush's low approval ratings. The following text is copied verbatim from a blurb on the U.S. Political Bulletin blog:

Media Blamed For Low Bush Approval The US News Political Bulletin has learned White House officials have a new theory about why President Bush's job approval ratings are so low -- the media keep harping on it so much that it's become a self-fulfilling analysis. "It's a drumbeat in the media," a senior Bush adviser tells the Bulletin. "It's a constant narrative that he suffers from low job approval. It should not be in the second paragraph of every story. The media should report what he's doing." White House officials are pointing to new survey research by GOP pollster Ed Goeas of the Tarrance Group to make their point that many of Bush's policies are very popular. Among the findings: While 62 per cent of likely voters disapprove of Bush's job performance, 73 per cent support his policy of going "on the offense against terrorists;" 65 per cent agree that he has "kept Americans safe from terrorist attacks:" and 64 per cent approve of his economic stimulus package passed by Congress earlier this year.

I wonder as we move forward with the 2008 general election if social issues will be a signficant factor in media coverage. Right now, Iraq, the economy, the environment, and immigration all appear to be more important than abortion and social issues. Perhaps I'm wrong, but that's my sense at this point.

If they remain in a secondary position throughout 2008, then social conservatives likely will remain frustrated throughout this election cycle.

So, what's the lesson here? Your past and your present are going to follow you wherever you go, and they can be found out very easily and quickly if you choose to place personal details about yourself (or photos of you in less than perfect moments) on these kinds of social networking sites. You can decide how much the world knows about you...use that power wisely.

It turned out to be 2:45 (or 165 minutes) of live television. Why? Chelsea Clinton was almost an hour behind schedule.

I anticipate that our coverage will be available through our university's Website sometime in the next 24 to 48 hours. In the meantime, I want to share with you the e-mail I sent to many people at the university tonight...

Hello everyone,

I can’t tell you the last time I was dazzled as I was on Wednesday night, as I watched a group of about 15 Point Park University broadcast journalism students light up the night. Consider these accomplishments…

1. 2:45 (as in 2 hours, 45 minutes) of live television as Chelsea Clinton came to our university2. Attention to issues and relevant political ideas in their analysis and questions3. A never-say-die attitude matched with a new sense of “wow, I CAN do this!”4. Work that attracted the attention of the university community, the mayor of Pittsburgh, news professionals from this city, and many others5. A professionalism that matches anything you will see on the local or network level.

Please take the time over the next few days to watch some of the work that these awesome young people did on Wednesday night. As their instructor, I was so proud of the fact that they got it…with “it” in this case substituting for so many things (some of which were mentioned above). As a former television producer, I was so proud of the content they delivered.

A few people told me that I deserved kudos for making Wednesday night work so well. And while I appreciated hearing them, I have to admit that what I did was minor – I had no role in getting Chelsea Clinton here, for example. What I didn’t say very effectively to those who complimented me was that the people who deserved the kudos were “my kids.” Whether they anchored, reported, directed, handled a crew assignment, or anything else that was asked and required of them, they did a fantastic job. I wish I could have saved the looks on their faces that I saw at around 7:45 p.m. (when we finally went off the air) and been able to share those with all of you. They were so proud of themselves. They deserved to be.

My thanks to the many people at the university that assisted in ways big and small with whatever my students needed to get their jobs done. If I attempted to name all of you, I’d leave someone out. So know that whatever you did, I appreciated it.

A couple of colleagues whom I've already talked to and I are revamping our schedules for today, to ensure that Chelsea Clinton's visit to Point Park University allows our students to experience what happens as if they were journalists.

One colleague has her students doing one-take, look-lives in which they summarize the preparations for the visit. (Those poor students had to use me as one of their sources...talk about the weakest link:-))

My student-produced newscast for later today has been revamped. When the director was told what was being planned, she had a wonderful expression on her face.

Our students are energized...they are excited. This is exactly what they should be experiencing. How fortunate we all are to have had Chelsea Clinton's schedule get wrapped up into ours.

Tuesday, March 11, 2008

Score one for Point Park University! The faculty and students late tonight received word that Chelsea Clinton will be on campus late tomorrow afternoon. It appears that an alum who is working for the Clinton campaign was able to steer Chelsea Clinton's visit to her alma mater.

It was in Chapter 2 of Michael Bugeja's book The Interpersonal Divide that the critics must have begun to sharpen their knives. In this section, Bugeja begins to more clearly outline where and how he believes human beings suffer because of their over-reliance upon technology.

As I did with Chapter 1, I offer here a very short synopsis of this chapter: Our lives suffer because we allow technology (an inanimate object, in whatever form it exists) to replace the connections, communications and contact the human soul needs from other human souls in order for the entire body to thrive. We allow the "virtual" to substitute for the "real," and our lives are not better off because of it.

A reasonable argument? I think so. I do admit that I would have liked more scientific rigor in this chapter (and I suspect I will feel the same about subsequent chapters, as well); too often I read grand, sweeping statements that needed some kind of scientific evidence and/or an academic citation. Lacking that documentation, this chapter too many times comes off as a "here's the way it is because innate common sense tells me so." Returning to the previous paragraph to help illustrate this point, I would have appreciated consistent examples of exactly "HOW" the human body, mind and soul are negatively affected by the chronic reliance upon technology. What happens to us physically? What happens to us cognitively? What happens to us emotionally? Perhaps these kinds of answers are still to come.

Mind you, I found myself in agreement with significant parts of this chapter, but the citations or evidence that I believe are always essential to any research were not there. At one point, I found myself thinking that this book was beginning to read like an extended argumentative essay.

Wow, what a bombshell. I mentioned to a friend in an e-mail that he and I exchanged this morning that what makes Elliot Spitzer's fall from power (and, yes, I am anticipated that he will resign as New York's governor because his connection to a prostitution ring) so stunning was that he rose to power by rooting out corruption.

I promised as part of a post last week to pick up Michael Bugeja's book The Interpersonal Divide and offer an assessment of it.

Before I begin, an acknowledgment: When I was working on my Ph.D. at Ohio University, Dr. Bugeja was on the faculty there. (He has since moved on and is the dean of the journalism school at Iowa State.) I know him, and I like him. Does that make this review biased? I'll leave it for the reader to decide. Moreover, he has not communicated with me about my post from last week (see "Meanwhile at Iowa State...") nor has he asked me to review the book.

With all this as the background...

I finished Chapter 1 tonight, and I admit that to this point I fail to see why so many people are outraged by this text. The story about Bugeja that I included in last week's link indicated that he has received a steady stream of negative comments because of the book. If you are looking for a short summary of the book (to this point), I would say this: Are we aware of the over-reliance we place upon technology? Closely associated with that: Are we aware of what we are giving up because of our over-reliance upon technology?

I remain amazed at how easily we disconnect ourselves from the electricity of life (how's that for a mixed metaphor!). We plug into our iPods, Internet, televisions, MP3 players, and other lo- to hi-tech devices...and often listen or watch alone. We tune in to what we want, to what we perceive as important and tune out anything we deem unimportant. It seems narcissistic, if you think about it.

My colleagues across the country and I often bemoan that the current college crowd is too often so locked in to their technology universes that they lack too many skills needed for personal and professional growth. Are we correct? I think we are. What is the effect of this individual watching/listening and skill set erosion? I don't have an answer for that. But then I also must admit that at work I have my professional and personal e-mail accounts always at the ready. I can send a note to anyone at anytime, though, as Bugeja reminds his readers in Chapter 1, this ability to instantly communicate does not mean that communication has become instantaneous. That and other fallacies, so defined by Bugeja, await you in that chapter.